Male Scratch Golfer on the LPGA Tour

[Golfingdad]

I doubt that a +5 is worse than the LPGA average. In fact, I doubt that +2 to +5 is worse.

Because it's not worse.  It's not even worse than the PGA tour average. http://thesandtrap.com/b/the_numbers_game/calculating_the_handicap_indeces_of_the_pros

The most relevant part of the story:

Barely Keeping the Card: J.P. Hayes

What about the "just scraping by" category? What would it take for us Joes to just barely keep our card (and earn over half a million dollars)? I found J.P. Hayes had just barely kept his card in 2006 and according to the numbers it would take a +4.0 index to be in his position.

Used | Date | Score | CR/Slope | Diff. | Tournament

---- ---- ----- -------- ----- ----------

| 02/04/07 | 76 | 73.9/131 | 1.8 | FBR Open

| 02/03/07 | 72 | 73.9/131 | -1.6 | FBR Open

* | 02/02/07 | 69 | 73.9/131 | -4.2 | FBR Open

* | 02/01/07 | 69 | 73.9/131 | -4.2 | FBR Open

* | 01/28/07 | 69 | 78.1/143 | -7.2 | Buick Invitational

* | 01/27/07 | 73 | 78.1/143 | -4.0 | Buick Invitational

* | 01/21/07 | 70 | 75.3/142 | -4.2 | Bob Hope Chrysler Cl.

| 01/20/07 | 73 | 74.6/140 | -1.3 | Bob Hope Chrysler Cl.

| 01/19/07 | 73 | 73.1/137 | -0.1 | Bob Hope Chrysler Cl.

| 01/18/07 | 71 | 72.9/122 | -1.8 | Bob Hope Chrysler Cl.

* | 10/15/06 | 68 | 74.3/139 | -5.1 | Frys.com Open

| 10/14/06 | 72 | 74.3/139 | -1.9 | Frys.com Open

| 10/08/06 | 73 | 74.1/135 | -0.9 | Chrysler Cl. of Greensboro

| 10/07/06 | 75 | 74.1/135 | 0.8 | Chrysler Cl. of Greensboro

| 10/06/06 | 72 | 74.1/135 | -1.8 | Chrysler Cl. of Greensboro

* | 10/05/06 | 70 | 74.1/135 | -3.4 | Chrysler Cl. of Greensboro

* | 10/01/06 | 68 | 72.1/139 | -3.3 | S. Farm Bureau Cl.

* | 09/30/06 | 68 | 72.1/139 | -3.3 | S. Farm Bureau Cl.

* | 09/29/06 | 68 | 72.1/139 | -3.3 | S. Farm Bureau Cl.

| 09/28/06 | 73 | 72.1/139 | 0.7 | S. Farm Bureau Cl.

---- -------- ----- -------- ----- ----------

Average Differential: -2.4

Best 10 Average Differential: -4.2

Handicap Index: +4.0

The guy who struggles to keep his card on the PGA tour is a +4.  It's not at all hard to believe that a guy who is a legit 0 would be able to make cuts on the LPGA tour.  Not hard at all.

---

And just for fun:  In March, the ladies play at Aviara Golf Club for the Kia Classic.  According to their website, they play the blue tees, which are 6,591 yards, and rated 72.7/139.  To make the cut last year, you needed to shoot +2.  That comes out to a differential of 0.24.  I don't see any reason to think that a guy who plays to a zero would not be able to occasionally string together two rounds of 73 on a 6600 yard course.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

I doubt that a +5 is worse than the LPGA average. In fact, I doubt that +2 to +5 is worse.

Because it's not worse.  It's not even worse than the PGA tour average.  http://thesandtrap.com/b/the_numbers_game/calculating_the_handicap_indeces_of_the_pros

The most relevant part of the story:

Quote:

Barely Keeping the Card: J.P. Hayes

What about the "just scraping by" category? What would it take for us Joes to just barely keep our card (and earn over half a million dollars)? I found J.P. Hayes had just barely kept his card in 2006 and according to the numbers it would take a +4.0 index to be in his position.

Used | Date | Score | CR/Slope | Diff. | Tournament

---- ---- ----- -------- ----- ----------

| 02/04/07 | 76 | 73.9/131 | 1.8 | FBR Open

| 02/03/07 | 72 | 73.9/131 | -1.6 | FBR Open

* | 02/02/07 | 69 | 73.9/131 | -4.2 | FBR Open

* | 02/01/07 | 69 | 73.9/131 | -4.2 | FBR Open

* | 01/28/07 | 69 | 78.1/143 | -7.2 | Buick Invitational

* | 01/27/07 | 73 | 78.1/143 | -4.0 | Buick Invitational

* | 01/21/07 | 70 | 75.3/142 | -4.2 | Bob Hope Chrysler Cl.

| 01/20/07 | 73 | 74.6/140 | -1.3 | Bob Hope Chrysler Cl.

| 01/19/07 | 73 | 73.1/137 | -0.1 | Bob Hope Chrysler Cl.

| 01/18/07 | 71 | 72.9/122 | -1.8 | Bob Hope Chrysler Cl.

* | 10/15/06 | 68 | 74.3/139 | -5.1 | Frys.com Open

| 10/14/06 | 72 | 74.3/139 | -1.9 | Frys.com Open

| 10/08/06 | 73 | 74.1/135 | -0.9 | Chrysler Cl. of Greensboro

| 10/07/06 | 75 | 74.1/135 | 0.8 | Chrysler Cl. of Greensboro

| 10/06/06 | 72 | 74.1/135 | -1.8 | Chrysler Cl. of Greensboro

* | 10/05/06 | 70 | 74.1/135 | -3.4 | Chrysler Cl. of Greensboro

* | 10/01/06 | 68 | 72.1/139 | -3.3 | S. Farm Bureau Cl.

* | 09/30/06 | 68 | 72.1/139 | -3.3 | S. Farm Bureau Cl.

* | 09/29/06 | 68 | 72.1/139 | -3.3 | S. Farm Bureau Cl.

| 09/28/06 | 73 | 72.1/139 | 0.7 | S. Farm Bureau Cl.

---- -------- ----- -------- ----- ----------

Average Differential: -2.4

Best 10 Average Differential: -4.2

Handicap Index: +4.0

The guy who struggles to keep his card on the PGA tour is a +4.  It's not at all hard to believe that a guy who is a legit 0 would be able to make cuts on the LPGA tour.  Not hard at all.

And just for fun:  In March, the ladies play at Aviara Golf Club for the Kia Classic.  According to their website, they play the blue tees, which are 6,591 yards, and rated 72.7/139.  To make the cut last year, you needed to shoot +2.  That comes out to a differential of 0.24.  I don't see any reason to think that a guy who plays to a zero would not be able to occasionally string together two rounds of 73 on a 6600 yard course.

Thanks for the data confirmation.

[rkim291968]

If, for example, a scratch drives 280 yards and hits within 30 feet from 180 yards, that score is weighted a lot less because there are more categories in the shorter distance. If an LPGA can hit within, let's say 6 feet from 60 yards while the +2 only hits within 8 feet then he will have a much lower score, the putting averages from 6 feet versus 8 feet are not that much different. In fact they are in the same "5-10 foot" statistic category. So, at this level of performance the difference is not very meaningful.

... but per USGA scratch golfer definition, a scratch golfer averages 250 yards.   Is this an outdated data?  No matter.  A male scratch golfer can drive 220, and another can drive 280 yards on average.  At end of the day, by definition, I assume they play to a similar score.    I had a chance to watch Ariya, Michelle, Ko, Stacey, Park In Bee in person when they played in SF last year (Swinging Skirt Tournament).   A scratch golfer from my club won't be able to beat those ladies in a two day tournament but others lesser LPGA players would be a fair game.

[iacas]

... but per USGA scratch golfer definition, a scratch golfer averages 250 yards. Is this an outdated data? No matter.

It matters quite a bit.

The USGA definition of a scratch golfer is how they determine the course rating. Holes which are 470 yards long don't require a "transition zone" or more than two shots for a scratch golfer to reach the green. It's purely done for ratings.

The average scratch golfer hits the ball over 250 yards.

A male scratch golfer can drive 220, and another can drive 280 yards on average.

The first would have to be really, really good at other things, and as such, doesn't really exist. Good luck finding a scratch golfer who averages 220. There might be a few, but they're exceptions.

I had a chance to watch Ariya, Michelle, Ko, Stacey, Park In Bee in person when they played in SF last year (Swinging Skirt Tournament).   A scratch golfer from my club won't be able to beat those ladies in a two day tournament but others lesser LPGA players would be a fair game.

They don't have to beat the top-tier players. The LPGA Tour is an incredibly shallow Tour. Once you get past the top 30 or 40 or so… it's a struggle to find quality.

[acerimusdux]

There is a lot less data for +2 to +5 handicaps because there are so few golfers with that skill level so I doubt it represents what a +2 averages.

That's why I didn't say 2.5, which would have been the midpoint of 0-5, saying 2 is alerady assuming the distribution is skewed. But if you prefer, +1.5. Same point. the guys who self-identify in that range are not as good as the LPGA ladies, at least not as good at hitting target from 60 to 180 yards out. But I think a true scratch golfer probably is as good.

[acerimusdux]

Yeah, that's spot on with what I was saying. If the CR is 72.7, then 2 rounds of 73 is just over the CR. Like I was saying, that's basically a median mini-tour player.  Those are the guys who I think would be good enough to make cuts in LPGA events.

And that's also just about a legit scratch golfer. By definition, the true scratch golfer has to be able to shoot the CR or better at least one round in 5, right? The guys who can do that in tournaments are the guys we're talking about.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

There is a lot less data for +2 to +5 handicaps because there are so few golfers with that skill level so I doubt it represents what a +2 averages.

That's why I didn't say 2.5, which would have been the midpoint of 0-5, saying 2 is alerady assuming the distribution is skewed. But if you prefer, +1.5. Same point. the guys who self-identify in that range are not as good as the LPGA ladies, at least not as good at hitting target from 60 to 180 yards out. But I think a true scratch golfer probably is as good.

There are a lot more players on one side of the range than on the other.

[Golfingdad]

Just want to point out that the guys you are all talking about who "self identify" with a particular handicap are going to be A LOT more scarce once you get down under a 2 or a 1 handicap.  It's a lot harder to fake a +2 than it is to fake a 5 or an 8 or something.

[Lihu]

Just want to point out that the guys you are all talking about who "self identify" with a particular handicap are going to be A LOT more scarce once you get down under a 2 or a 1 handicap.  It's a lot harder to fake a +2 than it is to fake a 5 or an 8 or something.

Even this is pretty hard to fake when you play someone. . .

[acerimusdux]

Even this is pretty hard to fake when you play someone. . .

We aren't necessarily talking about "faking it", though. I wouldn't dare accuse BuckeyeNut of "faking it" when he got down to scratch. I trust that he was fairly and accurately reporting his scores. Nonetheless, I can see from the data he posted that 16 of the 20 scores posted, and 9 of the 10 used to calculate his handicap,  were from one course.

Just because his handicap was totally legal though, that doesn't mean he would have been able to play to that level in a competitive tournament on another course. It was Ben Hogan who said "Golf and tournament golf are as different as baseball and hockey." And keep in mind, many of the guys who are serious about tournament golf will turn pro after they get to that level, not remain amateurs.  So there may be a fair number of non-tournament scratch players in the "self-identified" sample.

[Lihu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lihu

Even this is pretty hard to fake when you play someone. . .

We aren't necessarily talking about "faking it", though. I wouldn't dare accuse BuckeyeNut of "faking it" when he got down to scratch. I trust that he was fairly and accurately reporting his scores. Nonetheless, I can see from the data he posted that 16 of the 20 scores posted, and 9 of the 10 used to calculate his handicap,  were from one course.

Just because his handicap was totally legal though, that doesn't mean he would have been able to play to that level in a competitive tournament on another course. It was Ben Hogan who said "Golf and tournament golf are as different as baseball and hockey." And keep in mind, many of the guys who are serious about tournament golf will turn pro after they get to that level, not remain amateurs.  So there may be a fair number of non-tournament scratch players in the "self-identified" sample.

From what I understand, @BuckeyeNut is playing a pretty serious course, he can address the details. Most of these low single digit players do play tournaments, or high stakes games where you really don't want to be dropping strokes.

I suppose we have very different perspectives. I play a 72.9/130 rated course expecting to play bogey or better shooting in the low to mid-80s on my better rounds. I like to see more than a few birdie putt chances per round from any distance. Basically, I'm a bogey golfer.

Taking that to the next level, is probably to expect to make 8-10 greens with something like 10-20 foot birdie putts. IDK about higher levels of golf, but I will say that a scratch or low single digit HC is a very impressive player.

[Jakester23]

We aren't necessarily talking about "faking it", though. I wouldn't dare accuse BuckeyeNut of "faking it" when he got down to scratch. I trust that he was fairly and accurately reporting his scores. Nonetheless, I can see from the data he posted that 16 of the 20 scores posted, and 9 of the 10 used to calculate his handicap,  were from one course.

Just because his handicap was totally legal though, that doesn't mean he would have been able to play to that level in a competitive tournament on another course. It was Ben Hogan who said "Golf and tournament golf are as different as baseball and hockey." And keep in mind, many of the guys who are serious about tournament golf will turn pro after they get to that level, not remain amateurs.  So there may be a fair number of non-tournament scratch players in the "self-identified" sample.

Sorry I know this is a little

How much do any of you low cappers think this matters?  My buddy got down to a 1  (just under for a minute or two) at his peak and he played the same course almost exclusively.  He said he thought if he had played a bunch of different courses that year his cap would have been higher.  His point was he was so comfortable there that he knew where he could miss.  He was also real good  on and around the greens because he was so familiar with them.

I do wonder how long it would take a legit scratch but not tournament player to get conferrable with the pressure of playing with the LPGA players?  (Erik, Mike,  or any of you other scratch players) Do you think you would score about the same in this hypothetical situation as you do currently?  I know Id be so nervous but Im no where near in control of my game.

[Vinsk]

I'm not a scratch golfer. Forgive my wanting to respond. If we're bringing nerves, pressure into the discussion it's a bit of a tangent to the question at hand I believe. What I mean is the mental game is its own animal. As I've stated before there is no argument as Iacas has also mentioned that males have physical advantages in most sports. Being that this is simple fact, at what level of golf talent would a male have to be in order to compete, keep his card, earn a living on the LPGA? There are 10 and higher HC players who live in a state of Zen peace and would handle the pressure just fine. However, they'd never survive on the LPGA. Impossible. But a scratch golfer could be much less mentally sound but possess the GOLF SKILLS to put up enough good rounds to survive. But consider this: As Iacas has mentioned many LPGA courses aren't any more difficult than higher end country clubs/resorts and often set up easier. So even if the scratch guy was nervous ....eyeing down a 365 yd par 4 with shallow rough and soft green is much less nerve racking than a 515yd par 4 with water all down the right right side and a blazing fast green with the pin tucked in the back right corner. LPGA players are excellent golfers. But if you watch it often you'll start to become quite unimpressed with their short game including putting and the distances just seem...well just too silly to me. Chad Pfiefer is an amputee and a scratch golfer. Honda Classic he shot 70 playing with Eric Compton. I guarantee if you softened the greens....moved the pin to the middle and shortened the course 600yds he would've done better.

[GHIN0011458]

Just want to point out that the guys you are all talking about who "self identify" with a particular handicap are going to be A LOT more scarce once you get down under a 2 or a 1 handicap.  It's a lot harder to fake a +2 than it is to fake a 5 or an 8 or something.

Kinda like shooting 90 in a US Open local lol. SORRY I had to. But I think it is relevant. You have a plus 2 with no tourney experience who could not compete on the LPGA.

[Golfingdad]

Kinda like shooting 90 in a US Open local lol. SORRY I had to. But I think it is relevant. You have a plus 2 with no tourney experience who could not compete on the LPGA.

A little below the belt, perhaps, however, its a fair point. Certainly there are some, for lack of a better term**, lets call them "vanity cappers" at zero or better, but there are going to be a boatload less than there are 20 cappers masquerading as 6's.

**  I say this because I think that a guy who plays the same course over and over and plays in no tournaments and who blows up in one round doesn't automatically belong lumped in with guys who are flat out fibbing with their handicaps.  There is not nearly enough of a sample to draw any conclusions, frankly.

[iacas]

I do wonder how long it would take a legit scratch but not tournament player to get conferrable with the pressure of playing with the LPGA players?  (Erik, Mike,  or any of you other scratch players) Do you think you would score about the same in this hypothetical situation as you do currently?  I know Id be so nervous but Im no where near in control of my game.

I might score better. Some players like pressure. I tend to get a little lackadaisical sometimes when I don't have anything riding on things.

Not everyone's built the same. In general, I think people overstate the importance of "pressure." Lots of people deal with pressure well every day, in all sorts of professions.

SORRY I had to.

No you didn't.

[neophyte]

The top women golfers play money games at their home courses with PGA players.  I have never heard the details of strokes given or not  and same or different T's in their matches.

If the ladies are playing from the same T and gross, why not say so?

[SavvySwede]

The top women golfers play money games at their home courses with PGA players.  I have never heard the details of strokes given or not  and same or different T's in their matches.

If the ladies are playing from the same T and gross, why not say so?

Well it is plainly obvious that scenario isn't happening.